For Labour to even consider the introduction of one Service School to each region of the country is a downright scandal, and it would be much better for the party if Stephen Twigg were reshuffled as quickly as possible, a long way away from any position of policy influence.

There’ll be plenty of leftie commentators along this afternoon to talk about how subjecting young people to military rule – to force them into cowed, resentful, but temporary submission before authority, rather than encouraring their creativity and intellectual/moral growth – is just about the stupidest idea Labour’s policy wonks have ever had.
I bet Owen Jones is battering at the keyboard right now, and I expect I’ll agree with much of what he has to say. Christ, has Twigg not noticed that ex-servicemen are more likely to be serving sentences for violent and sexual offences than the general prison population, and that being in the forces does nothing at all, statistically, to make you a more law-abiding citizen?

Has he not thought that through? Has he never met a group of squaddies on a night out? (Note: this is not blaming squaddies. It’s blaming the culture they’re forced to endure).

So as Owen et al are covering that, I’ll cover the policy implementation side. It is perfectly obvious, to anyone with a braincell, how regional service schools will develop. They will start out as bright, expensive, shiny military academies.

They will soon, through the educational ‘managed transfer’ process which shuffles ‘difficult children’ around the schools system, become a key point of call, either subequent to or alongside Pupil Referral Unit (the current last port of call).

They will become THE place for lads – and it will mostly be lads – who won’t do as they’re told, and they will in the process diminish the effectivenss of the Pupil Referral Units.

They will, in effect, be the new Borstals.

Welcome to 21st century Labour education policy: led by the nose by a Conservative ‘theologian’ whose one-card trick is to resdescribe the ’social failure’ brought by his party’s brand of economic policy in terms that blame the poor and the young, and whose understanding of the real world of education is just about zilch.

About the author
Paul Cotterill is a regular contributor, and blogs more regularly at Though Cowards Flinch, an established leftwing blog and emergent think-tank. He currently has fingers in more pies than he has fingers, including disability caselaw, childcare social enterprise, and cricket.· Other posts by Paul Cotterill

Reader comments

From your link to the Howard League:
“The numbers of ex-servicemen in prison appear broadly similar to previous estimates … and statistics suggest that ex-servicemen are less likely to be in prison than civilians” (4th paragraph)

“official statistics report that 32.9 per cent of ex-servicemen in prison are serving sentences for ‘violence against the person’, compared to 28.6 per cent of the general prison population. 25 per cent of ex-servicemen in prison are serving sentences for sexual offences, compared to 11 per cent of the general prison population” (last paragraph)

The difference in sexual offences is quite shocking, but you should be clear that this is compared to the general prison population – ex-servicemen are less likely to be in prison overall.

“is just about the stupidest idea Labour’s policy wonks have ever had.”

No, that one goes to Purnell, Hain et al for creating the work capability assesment and designing the contract for ATOS that rewarded them for ruining disabled people’s lives.

But in reality this idea is merely the latest in a long line of headline grabbing ideas that clearly haven’t been thought through properly and are far more about trying to generate positive headlines in the right wing press than any actual policy ideas.

In other words, that twigg will come up with this rubbish should be nothing suprising to people not members of the party. We have yet to see serious changes within labour that illustrate it has learned anything about policy making. And this isn’t anything about ideology either, it applies to the blairites, brownites, and the fabians as well – there is nothing intrinsicallly about blairism that should lead to this rubbish. It’s about the way labour selects and promotes (or doesn’t promote) talent within the party, and how it rewards tribalism and careerism over ability. There are talented people in the labour party currently running organisations and being succesful in their carreers who are trying to become MPs, MSPs, MEPs and AMs who are overlooked in selection processes where safe seats are either given to long standing members who are simply regarded as backbench fodder, or to party hacks with no outside experience being rushed into senior levels.

Poor areas have traditionally proved rich recruiting grounds for canon fodder, whilst “things have been pretty tough back at HQ” officers and the 20,000 plus desk jockeys and keyboard rattlers at the M0D have usually benefitted from a more comfortable background.
There is ample evidence of our soldiers being treated shamefully pre, during and post conflict with a history of such malfeasance predating the Napoleonic wars.
Contrast the pension paid by the German government to U Boat crews and that paid by the British government to AB Seamen who served on Atlantic and Artic Convoy duties.
Nothing changes.
I would hope that parents warn their children well of the treatment they might receive should they sign up, escape death or disablement in some ‘foreign adventure’ engaged on their behalf by a witless, psychopathic fool in Westminster and need now to look to the state for support.
Twigg is a Friend of Israel, Chairman of Progress, has a healthy majority and like the rest has his nose in the public trough,
Whilst awaiting the Second Coming of his Messiah Blair why would he care what we think of his policies?
It will read well with the ‘hang ‘em and flog ‘em brigade at the Mail and the Telegraph but beggars the question whether this was run past Milliband first?
If it was, then we learn a little more of the nature of that man.
For me it just goes to show how utterly clueless the Shadow Cabinet is and why this family won’t be voting New Labour in any future elections.

It accords perfectly with Blairism and its associated starting of wars.
Leaving aside the emotive cannon-fodder lines etc (which are nonetheless valid criticims) this is unworkable on so many levels. Will the already shrinking numbers of active servicemen have duties to engage with the schools? If so, that’s the services stretched even further. If it’s to be a fast-track for post-services folk to enter teaching, then how does that square with any kind of regard or respect for the teaching profession?
Oh, and to kill off the idea quickly, just say Deepcut. Again and again.

Kojak: we know that the children who are trying to learn, actually do learn anyway. The UK doesn’t have a problem in terms of an educated elite or even middle, it has a problem at the bottom end of the scale, which shifting the people at the bottom end of the scale to military prison isn’t going to do much about…

Why should the entire class have to suffer because of the behaviour and rights of a disruptive pupil? Schools exist to educate children – they are not a branch of social services.

One of the reasons private schools produce better results is that they do not put up with crap and disruptive behaviour – in no small part for fear that the classmates parents might take their £5000 a term fees elsewhere. So I don’t see why pupils in the state system should have to put up with it either.

I want children (all children from all levels of society) to have the best possible chance to do well at school and shape their futures. And by that I also mean allowing them to do far better than they do now (Yes – I do think we already have a problem of poor attainment). Relying on the likelihood that middle class children might be better able resist the downward influence isn’t good enough, for me at least….. though perhaps you think it’s ok for your kids.

Show me some statistics about the % of disruptive children who have been able to control their problems and leave secondary education with decent prospects and an desire to succeed as opposed to remain lost and disruptive – then we can have a discussion about whether it really is worth keeping persistently disruptive within their classes. Until then all I can see is how the other children suffer.

Mahkno re comment 7:

This article is about Steven Twigg’s idea of Service schools for disruptive pupils not rounding them up and shooting them as you mentioned.

This is not targeted just at disruptive children, but at poor children no matter how hard they work. Worth also noting that middle and upper class kids can be disruptive though.

@6’s comment that children can learn if they want to even if others are disrupting classes is ludricrous though. I agree with cracking down on poor discipline in schools – but this is not the right way and, as mentioned above, is not even targeted at improving discipline in schools.

Having been to a school where the head sought to create an authoritarian and military atmosphere in the interests of discipline, I’m absolutely certain that it would not be healthy for society for it to be more widespread.

But your objection is not about what can/or cannot be achieved with military schools. Your objection is that you simply do not like the Army, and probably soldiers in general.

I’ve counted many squaddies as friends over the years and I have plenty of respect for their personal bravery. I wouldn’t do their job for twice the cash they get.

On the other hand, I’d sooner leave my kids with Michael Jackson than a military school. Say what you like about Wacko Jacko but at least your bairns would come back with both eyes, all of their skin and their limbs and genitals in the right place. You can’t say that about the army.

So, what we have here is basically a pair of parliamentary twats appropriating a dipshit right wing idea of little merit. While I disagree with much of the original post, the author’s basic point – that this is one of those arse-brained ideas for miraculous social cure-alls via hard work, discipline and fatherland that right wing politicians regularly substitute for rational thought – is pretty much spot on.

Everything else here is just whack-whack-whack OMG the lefties hate the military/discipline/precious bodily fluids etc. Even assuming that this is true – and given the Labour Party’s fellatial praise for and enthusiastic use of the military at every possible opportunity, it certainly isn’t – it’s entirely irrelevant to the issue of education.

And just to finish – see also Shuggy, who has a 100% foolproof scheme for measuring the value of this type of school…

“Suggest others spend a bit of time looking at the success of this policy in the US. It is hugely respected by pupils, parents and headteachers alike.”

Well, the parents tend to send their kids to military school because they think they’re out of control, so they’ll probably favour increased discipline over other factors. The kids will have spent months being aggressively trained to respect the system, so they hardly count. And if the headteacher of a military school doesn’t approve of military schools they’re in the wrong job.

Thanks for the link FR. In other news, Labour suggests home economics teachers should be dispatched to Afghanistan.

Leaving the military aspect of it to one side for a mo’, what people should understand is that any scheme that has this kind of narrow sociological focus will not improve ‘social mobility’ but restrict it. Dunno how it works in England but one would imagine it would have the same kind of effect that putting ‘community’ in the title of your school has in Scotland. You might as well say to any prospective employer, “Yeah, so after I was released….” Say what you like about grammar and faith schools – the membership of these says less about social class than this lunatic suggestion.

A great many private soldiers are recruited from the more desperate families and communities of our country. Always have, always will.
The army gives structure to their lives. Not all of the intake can handle it.
Of those that do, many find it hard to make a transition back to civilian life – not just because of PTSD but simply because they grew up without structure and without the support mechanism of squad, platoon and regiment, they cannot cope.
Some regiments are better than other about managing the change.
BTW, soldiers learn skills other than pointing SA80s.
I really hate some of the anti-military comments on this thread but recognise it would probably be impossible to convince those knee-jerks.
The Briitsh Army is a truly great institution – as good as any human organisation has ever been. It suceeds. It fails. It always tries.
Every man thinks less of himself if he has not been a soldier.

The paper proposing the Military Academies by Phillip Blond and Patricia Kaszynska is well worth a read. I don’t mean to say that it is interesting – it is truly awful. But reading it will give a clear idea of just how far Stephen Twigg is prepared to go in his enthusiasm for breaking up any trace of a school system based on comprehensive community schools.

First the problem addressed by the paper is expressed in terms of disadvantaged young people and “failing” schools. These young people are said to have lost their “moral compass” and that in response “The armed forces can make an immensely important contribution to improving the nation’s moral health”.

We are never told the extent of school failure and certainly there is no examination of any school successes working in deprived areas (isn’t that claimed to be a success already notched up by ‘Blair’s Academies’?). There is no effort either to discuss how ‘failing’ schools could be turned around and therefore no reasons given as to why this is not possible. It is considered enough just to refer to ‘failing schools. with no detail supplied. This sort of discourse only works against a background in which we all ‘know’ that regular state schools are all crap. This is the type of analysis that Stephen Twigg is prepared to associate himself with.

The Military Academies would be staff by military personnel and special programmes would be used to get those of them without the regular qualifications required for teaching qualified by a process of “smaller more attainable steps”.

Civilian teachers would be allowed provided that they “express support for this unique approach founded in a military ethos”. Not enough to be good at maths and good at teaching it then. You would also need to embrace the military ethos.

The paper recognises that high unemployment is a central cause of the problem of deprived areas but never discusses how THAT might be changed. Instead everything is focused on the morally uplifting qualities of army discipline and military ethos.

There is lots more like this in the paper. As I said, it is awful. I think that it would be difficult to read it and not to agree with Paul Cotterill that “it would be much better for the party if Stephen Twigg were reshuffled as quickly as possible, a long way away from any position of policy influence.” It really is time he was given his marching orders.

So, how many contributors to Liberal Conspiracy ever actually attended a cadet force when they were young? I would wager 0 did.

I attended a cadet force ( ATC) in a very poor part of the country where the state schoolswas one of the worst in Britain ( THE worst, iirc). Many of my peers ( Girls and Boys), also from poor areas, attended too. We went flying, completed a Duke of Edinburgh award, earned BTEC qualifications in our spare time, volunteered in the local community, got careers advice ( much of which was directed towards careers OUTSIDE of the military, had fitness training, interview training, and so on… The experience benefited everyone who attended. Some went into the forces, but the majority went onto university or into the trades.

It shocks me that many of the left on here rightly criticise the Right for killing off industry yet, at the same time, they recoil at the thought of introducing some of the best tradesmen and women in Britain to our schools. How on earth will the manufacturing society which you all so cherish come back if we don’t have people equipped with trade skills ( plumbing, engineering, computer coding– yes, we did that in the cadets too! –, electrics, et al..)?

Furthermore, I think this shows up the elitism which regrettably pervades many parts of the left. We claim to stand up for the working man and woman and yet we view our servicemen and women as brutes — people who were ‘conscripted’ into the forces — god forbid we grant them the assumption that these ‘brutes’ have freewill! This is an absolutely disgusting and horrifying display of elitism which stem from the closeted privets of the middle class left.

You praise Scandinavian social democracy an awful lot but fail to recognise that many Nordic countries still have mandatory military service.

No one is saying that no good experience can come from the experience of cadets.

Neither is anyone arguing that school should not, at some stage, provide vocational courses.

Finally no one has based their argument on the idea that our service men and women are brutes.

So I think you have got things very wrong by assuming that people are saying things that they are not in fact saying.

The argument against the Military Academies proposal has a number of elements. Briefly these are:

(1) There is no reason to think that the forces, as opposed to traditional school providers (mainly local authorities), is a notable source of moral rectitude;

(2) The inappropriateness of treating the forces in general, and the army in particular as a source of moral regeneration, is shown by its poor treatment of ex-service men and women and by the social problems that they encounter after service;

(3) The military ethos of strict chains of command in which people are expected to respond to orders without debating them is a poor model for developing young minds to think critically about the world around them;

(4) Vocational options are desirable at a stage but eleven (the age of Academy intake) is too young;

(5) There are no good grounds for assuming that young people in areas of high unemployment need a “narrow curriculum” (especially since we haven’t been told what this narrowness consists of);

(6) The forces a part of the apparatus of state. As such it is not appropriate that they should have a controlling influence on education. Their input is welcome. More than that is too close to ideological control of education by the state (which admittedly we are getting in spades from Gove but that does not make it acceptable);

(7) The proposal has not been based on any examination of schooling and its problems in areas of high unemployment but just on an unsubstantiated assumption that all such schooling is rubbish;

(8) School cannot solve societies problems. No school, whoever runs it, is going to deal with disaffection among communities with high unemployment and high poverty rates. Good schooling requires good economic and social policies;

(9) The proposal is not serious without examining the alternative of good state schools and why current schools have failed to deliver a good service where this can be shown to be the case.

(10) The proposal is clearly just a modern form of recruiting for the forces among the poor and unemployed.

The proposal is a very bad idea indeed and it is a sign of the failure of Stephen Twigg that he is sort short on ideas of his own that he has grabbed at even this.

This is just a piece of prejudiced nonsense from the far reaches of the hard left of the Labour Party. Firstly, let us look at the actual policy. Service Schools are not going to borstals at all. They are going to be in all regions open to all but particularly targeted at in inner-city areas. One example would be St Michael’s Academy in Lewisham. It used to be St Joseph’s, a school notorious for crime and low standards. This creates a lack of aspiration as well as a discipline deficit. A girl got a mentor from someone who used to be in the armed forces. She was disruptive and was in danger educationally. She is now a star pupil but she still does not want to join the forces but it has helped her. Discipline is good but it does not equate to cannon fodder. Secondly, these things happen in the private sector. Why should we open these opportunities to those who have the money to pay for it but close it off to those who don’t go to posh schools. That is not right. Private schools already have CCF and ex servicemen (many of who make brilliant teacher and good houseparents). Why should that opportunity be open to the private sector but not to the state sector? It is nonsense. Thirdly, the other point is just rude and offensive towards the armed forces. This far-left hatred towards the army. Whatever you think about war, you cannot deny that our service personnel protect this country and keep us safe. They lay down their lives in our to keep the country safe, it’s only the minority who have no appreciation or respect (as demonstrated on this page). Fourthly, the armed forces is a popular and loved public institution. Whatever people think about wars that are fought, they support the armed forces. I can understand if the Left where flat-out opposed to privatisation or any sort of private sector involvement in our schools but this is a public service helping out any other public service – and a major, ancient and loved public service. This is article is utter nonsense which miscontrues the policy, disrespects the forces but worst of all is a lie.

“A girl got a mentor from someone who used to be in the armed forces. She was disruptive and was in danger educationally. She is now a star pupil but she still does not want to join the forces but it has helped her.”

Anecdotes like this, whether true or false, are unhelpful. Is the implication that no disruptive pupil was ever helped to find his/her way in a comprehensive/community school? Clearly such stories can be found for various types of school. They do not therefore constitute and argument and not even an illustration of an argument.

“Discipline is good”

Who suggested the contrary?

“Private schools already have CCF and ex servicemen (many of who make brilliant teacher and good house-parents).”

Who suggested that ex-service personnel should play no part in schools? The issue is about the competence and desirability of the army running schools.

“This far-left hatred towards the army. Whatever you think about war, you cannot deny that our service personnel protect this country and keep us safe.”

This mini-rant is just daft. I do not hate the army. I would have to know what you mean by the “far-left” in order to work out if I belong to it. I am not aware of anyone in the debate about these schools who has based their arguments on a denial of a role for the armed forces in protecting the country. This is all just made up stuff.

“… this is a public service helping out any other public service …”

On that argument you might just as well have argued that local government which is responsible for the delivery of most public services is the best suited to “help out” with education.

“This is article is utter nonsense which misconstrues the policy, disrespects the forces but worst of all is a lie.”

[…] to be serving sentences for violent and sexual offences than the general prison population”, asked the leading Left-wing website Liberal Conspiracy. “I'd love to meet Stephen Twigg, punch him in the face and tell him that's what military schools […]

[…] to be serving sentences for violent and sexual offences than the general prison population”, asked the leading Left-wing website Liberal Conspiracy. [Hodges leaves out the hyperlink to the Howard League article, from which this is directly […]

[…] on the ideas of cretinous rightwing Tories?” A blog on the Liberal Conspiracy website said the fact you were proposing this was a “downright scandal”. A New Statesman blog said this could come from the BNP. Are you going to see this through, or is […]

[…] on the ideas of cretinous rightwing Tories?” A blog on the Liberal Conspiracy website said the fact you were proposing this was a “downright scandal”. A New Statesman blog said this could come from the BNP. Are you going to see this through, or is […]

[…] on the ideas of cretinous rightwing Tories?” A blog on the Liberal Conspiracy website said the fact you were proposing this was a “downright scandal”. A New Statesman blog said this could come from the BNP. Are you going to see this through, or is […]

[…] on the ideas of cretinous rightwing Tories?” A blog on the Liberal Conspiracy website said the fact you were proposing this was a “downright scandal”. A New Statesman blog said this could come from the BNP. Are you going to see this through, or is […]

[…] on the ideas of cretinous rightwing Tories?” A blog on the Liberal Conspiracy website said the fact you were proposing this was a “downright scandal”. A New Statesman blog said this could come from the BNP. Are you going to see this through, or is […]

[…] on the ideas of cretinous rightwing Tories?” A blog on the Liberal Conspiracy website said the fact you were proposing this was a “downright scandal”. A New Statesman blog said this could come from the BNP. Are you going to see this through, or is […]

[…] on the ideas of cretinous rightwing Tories?” A blog on the Liberal Conspiracy website said the fact you were proposing this was a “downright scandal”. A New Statesman blog said this could come from the BNP. Are you going to see this through, or is […]

[…] on the ideas of cretinous rightwing Tories?” A blog on the Liberal Conspiracy website said the fact you were proposing this was a “downright scandal”. A New Statesman blog said this could come from the BNP. Are you going to see this through, or is […]

[…] on the ideas of cretinous rightwing Tories?” A blog on the Liberal Conspiracy website said the fact you were proposing this was a “downright scandal”. A New Statesman blog said this could come from the BNP. Are you going to see this through, or is […]

[…] on the ideas of cretinous rightwing Tories?” A blog on the Liberal Conspiracy website said the fact you were proposing this was a “downright scandal”. A New Statesman blog said this could come from the BNP. Are you going to see this through, or is […]

[…] on the ideas of cretinous rightwing Tories?” A blog on the Liberal Conspiracy website said the fact you were proposing this was a “downright scandal”. A New Statesman blog said this could come from the BNP. Are you going to see this through, or is […]

[…] on the ideas of cretinous rightwing Tories?” A blog on the Liberal Conspiracy website said the fact you were proposing this was a “downright scandal”. A New Statesman blog said this could come from the BNP. Are you going to see this through, or is […]

[…] on the ideas of cretinous rightwing Tories?” A blog on the Liberal Conspiracy website said the fact you were proposing this was a “downright scandal”. A New Statesman blog said this could come from the BNP. Are you going to see this through, or is […]